By: Soberlink | AAML NJ Bronze Sponsor

5 Most Common Issues Family Law Attorneys Should Avoid with Alcohol Monitoring

Implementing alcohol monitoring in family law cases can be challenging, as each case requires specific protocols to ensure effectiveness. Avoiding common pitfalls can prevent unintended consequences that impact both the client and the family dynamic. Here are the top four areas that family law attorneys should take care of.

1. Selecting Inadequate Technology and Support

Choosing reliable alcohol monitoring technology is essential for consistent, court-admissible results. Traditional methods, like random lab tests, fail to offer real-time data, creating gaps in monitoring. For optimal results, attorneys should prioritize tools with real-time reporting, facial recognition, and tamper detection—features that make systems like Soberlink effective for child custody cases. Ensuring that support services are available for questions or court appearances can also be crucial to successful monitoring.

2. Setting Incorrect Testing Schedules and Frequencies

Improper testing schedules can result in missed alcohol consumption. Ideally, monitoring should occur 3-4 times per day, with tests spaced no more than 8-10 hours apart to detect overnight drinking. Every case has unique demands; thus, testing schedules should be customized. Overloading a parent with unnecessary tests can be overwhelming and counterproductive, so attorneys should create reasonable schedules tailored to each client’s circumstances. Soberlink offers multiple programs that allow for either limited parenting-time tests or consistent daily monitoring.

3. Imposing Unrealistic Protocols Outside System Capabilities

Attorneys may inadvertently set clients up for failure by requesting monitoring protocols outside the system’s capabilities. For instance, Soberlink’s Level 2 Program allows up to four tests daily within specific time windows, with a built-in, two-hour test window flexibility. Customizing testing windows beyond the system’s design can create unrealistic expectations and noncompliance, which could unfairly affect the parent. Attorneys should work within the monitoring system’s framework to avoid placing undue strain on clients.

4. Excessive Penalties for Missed Tests

Assigning strict penalties for every missed test can create unnecessary tension and disrupt family interactions. Missed tests should be considered thoughtfully, as there are often valid reasons for a delay in submitting a test.

Considering Missed Tests in Context:

• Defining a Missed Test: A Missed Test means a scheduled test wasn’t completed within the allowed timeframe, usually a two-hour window. In Soberlink’s Level 2 - Daily Testing Program, this results in a Missed Test with a yellow notification on the reports, while in the Level 1 - Parenting Time Only Program, the parents will need to document the missed tests.
  

• Reasons for Missed Tests: Missed tests can occur due to common situations, such as leaving the device behind, interruptions from daily responsibilities, or unexpected events.
  

• Adaptation and Communication: Rather than issuing immediate consequences, Missed Tests should lead to a conversation to adjust the schedule as needed. This approach can help refine the monitoring plan to better align with the person’s daily routine.
  

• Prioritizing Family Stability: It’s essential to foster a positive environment for everyone involved. Excessive penalties can create strain, whereas open discussions help families stay cohesive and accountable. A thoughtful approach centers on the child’s well-being while ensuring all parties feel supported.

Note: In Soberlink’s Level 1 - Parenting Time Only Program, there are no missed tests as the schedule relies on shared tools managed by the family rather than being managed by Soberlink’s system.

5. Underestimating the Necessary Monitoring Duration

Determining the right duration for alcohol monitoring is essential to establish a pattern of sobriety. For individuals with an Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), experts recommend at least one year of monitoring to demonstrate sustained sobriety. Even those without a formal diagnosis benefit from a 6-12 month monitoring period, providing sufficient time to confirm reliable sobriety patterns. Setting an appropriate duration supports a safe environment for the child and helps ensure long-term stability for all parties.

Conclusion

By selecting the right technology, establishing realistic testing protocols, setting appropriate schedules, and committing to a sufficient monitoring duration, family law attorneys can effectively support a safe and stable environment for children involved in custody cases. Avoiding these common pitfalls not only promotes accountability but also fosters a balanced approach that considers the needs of both the child and the parent. Thoughtful alcohol monitoring practices help safeguard families and ensure that court-mandated sobriety requirements are met with integrity and fairness.